Amarillo Testing & Engineering, Inc.

AMARILLO TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.

2911 W. AMARILLO BLVD.

AMARILLO, TEXAS 79106

(806) 374-2756

PERFORMANCE

OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE

IN AMARILLO, TEXAS ??

Download publication in MS Word file

GOOD NEWS – BUT NOT ALWAYS.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
HOW MUCH MORE IS THIS GOING TO COST?
HOW CAN ADDITIONAL COSTS BE JUSTIFIED?
WHAT TO DO IF DEFICIENCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED?

By Bernard Ray Tillery, P.E.

The prospective homebuyer and homeowner in the Amarillo area are indeed fortunate. Typically, he has a wide choice of type home, size, and location for wide ranges of pricing. The region boasts a cadre of competent and caring homebuilding community that believe that quality home construction is the key to a healthy and durable home building climate in the region. In the majority of cases, the homebuyer can expect to receive a high quality product for a reasonable price.

Minority of cases do occur when the homeowner’s expectations are not, unfortunately, satisfied. A small percentage of both new and used homes do exist that have deficiencies. A builder may provide one hundred homes that exhibit no structural problems. But if he produces one home that does have apparent structural deficiencies out of those one hundred, then he will spend more time and energy in callbacks and even possibly litigation than all the other successful units combined. Life’s too short to be forced to deal with structural deficiencies in home construction, particularly when difficulties and risk can be avoided or averted at very small relative cost.

Construction related deficiencies do occur in residential structures in the Amarillo area. Our engineering staff here at Amarillo Testing and Engineering, Inc. provides structural forensic services to a variety of clients such as home builders, home owners, insurance companies, real estate companies, and litigants in the local area who seek remedies or compensation for those deficiencies.

Consequentially, we have access to a considerable bank of knowledge and experience regarding those deficiencies, their origin, and sometimes their remediation. In the process, we have insights that we seek to share with interested parties that may serve to help prevent the more common repeated deficiencies regarding home construction in the Amarillo area. The following is a summary of reoccurring circumstances and defects (not necessarily in order of importance or predominance) that originate with original construction:

1. Excessive landscape watering results in perimeter uplift due to expansive clays. Soils beneath the perimeter foundation become wetted, swell, and cause uplift of the exterior walls and adjacent floor slabs. This makes the interior slab near the center of the house to appear as if it has “settled”. Doorjambs become misaligned and cracks occur over doors and windows in the dry wall.

2. Sporadic or inconsistent landscape watering can result in seasonal shrinkage and/or uplift in the exterior walls and adjacent floor slabs. Expansive soils beneath the footings can be wetted during wet seasons to cause uplift, but then can settle back during the dry season as shrinkage of the perimeter soils occur.

3. Poor or negative drainage around the exterior of the house can result in excessive, but intermittent wetting and it’s resultant uplift of perimeter foundation features.

4. The floor is often too close to the same elevation of the exterior landscaping. City code calls for at least six inches vertical separation between wood structure and the ground level. Two to four inches is the actual separation more often than not.

5. Cracks in walls and variations of floor levelness concentrate in areas radiating from fireplaces and basements.

6. Mortar in brick veneer deteriorates prematurely near the brick veneer’s ground level.

8. Plumbing deficiencies occurring soon after construction is completed. Fresh water lines leak and sewers do not drain or become plugged too frequently.

A common response to the above problems will be, “If you’re going to own a home in Amarillo, Texas, plan on having at least some of the above noted defects.”

This is a true comment, almost common knowledge. The thing is, though, many of these circumstances can, for the most part, be prevented. What’s more, the cost of prevention is surprisingly lower than might be expected.

Most homebuyers are concerned with initial cost, but they can be quality conscious if they become aware of the cost of not having the highest viable quality. As the old saying goes, “One keeps paying for low quality long after the cost of high quality has been forgotten.”

The above noted deficiencies are all rooted in the structural components of the residence. The source of difficulty can be traced to either the site preparation, the installation and/or design of the foundation and/or structural framing system. Interestingly, the typical homebuyer does not usually concern himself with these aspects of the construction work until he experiences one or more of these noted defects. This means the building professional must concern himself with these details for the sake of the prospective homebuyer and make the homebuyer aware of the methods of prevention.

The above noted defects typically encountered are usually not the result of any one source. As stated, the origin of the deficiencies stems from site preparation and or design/construction of foundation and structural systems. Usually, the defects occur as a result of combinations of problems with these aspects of the constructed feature.

Never the less, each cause must be described separately while the reader is asked to keep in mind that the encountered problems usually involve combinations of the noted cause to follow.

Unprepared Sites -- Even a highly engineered and heavily designed residential foundation system can exhibit problems if site preparation is inadequate. Proper site preparation prior to the first load of concrete cannot be overemphasized. Regardless of the client’s willingness to pay, proper site preparation must be a builder’s first priority for his own protection.

Few residential structures exhibit catastrophic foundation defects. But when such defects occur, it’s usually the result of a site that is not conducive to supporting a building foundation. Some of these problem sites are natural and some are manmade.

Most of the serious problems observed in the Amarillo area stem from the placement of a structure on uncontrolled embankment fill soil. The City Code permitting process does not become involved until the homebuilder files for a building permit for a particular piece of property. Unless the builder is aware, he may be planning to build on a site that has received uncontrolled fill. The City becomes involved with compacted fill after the building permit has been filed. It is assumed that the site is adequate for construction prior to the filing of the building permit. Unfortunately, ample evidence exists that the site often is not in a condition conducive for building without additional site preparation.

A similar circumstance exists on sites that are not to receive embankment construction fill; or the structure is to be built on a site that has been scalped of vegetation and footings are cut without additional modification. Typical clayey soils in the Amarillo area are dry and hard, at least during a dry season. Unfortunately, soils in this condition are prone to swell when wetted. So when the home is completed and the sprinklers are turned on, uplift actions around the perimeter of the house begin immediately.

Prepared Sites – Sites that are prepared with additional embankment fill soil in accordance with minimum City Code Enforcement Standards are still prone to post construction soil movements. The City’s standards are prepared as a minimum requirement for permitting. However, experience indicates this requirement is only adequate at best, designed to keep general home construction costs as low as possible while providing some enforcement capability.

No standards or guidelines are dictated by city code with regard to the type of embankment soil that is to be used for site leveling. As a result, a clean sand soil could be used for embankment fill over a site of heavy expansive clays that are impermeable. Sands on the surface can absorb moisture and hold moisture on top of underlying clays. This can create a sub-surface pool of water around the house! Not good. On the other hand, a heavy clay that has high expansive soil qualities can be placed on a good clayey sand site that would have been very good for construction otherwise! Not good, either.

City code requires a perimeter grade beam of 2’ depth by 10” width with longitudinal reinforcing steel for single story residential units with interior 3 ½” slab with wire mesh over sand layer without regard for interior structural support footings or slab thickenings. Such a system is marginally adequate for about a 1200 sq.ft. rectangular residential structure as long as no site preparation defects exist. It’s a bare minimum. And yet, large 3500 sq.ft., heavy stone homes with multiple interior and exterior corners are built with this foundation system. What’s more, the modern trends call for large open spaces. This means structural loadings must be concentrated on an unsupported slab.

On top of all this, framing is often performed without plan, guidance or proper consideration for framing span requirements. Thank goodness most framers are capable of dealing with these situations adequately in most cases. Unfortunately, oftentimes the framer is forced into uneven load distributions for which he has no control.

The end result is high structural loadings at specific interior slab locations where no additional foundation support is anticipated. When the exterior soils act to uplift the perimeter of the house, the heavily loaded slab has a tendency to settle in a see-saw action. This aggravates the differential movement of the floor slab when the wetted expansive perimeter soils swell and uplift.

Similar differential movements are observed around fireplace locations and basement locations. Sometimes, it appears that the fireplace or basement has settled with respect to the rest of the house. The basement or fireplace acts as an anchor that is essentially immovable. Yet, the surrounding perimeter of the house can uplift. As a result, cracks and damage radiate around the fireplace and basement as uplifting of expansive soils occur. All the problems that occur as a result of improper site preparation aggravate whenever basements and heavy fireplace structures are involved.

Unfortunately, damage investigations sometimes reveal poor craftsmanship of installation. A common example of such inadequacies is finding wire mesh or slab reinforcing steel at the bottom of the slab, partially immersed in the underlying sand layer. These investigations are often initiated by discoveries of fresh water leaks beneath the floor slab. Want to guess why the leak occurred? It occurred because the un-embedded slab reinforcing steel has rubbed upon the unburied fresh water line!

Sewers tend to plug more frequently when the fall of the line is not maintained. Not enough care in installation is the culprit.

On some houses, the mortar of the brick veneer recedes. This is seen within about three feet of the surface of the ground. Poor mortar is discovered at these locations. Poor mortar ravels due to the sprinkler water, which should not hit the wall in the first place, but it sometimes does due to inattention of installation.

Seepage around basement or subsurface walls can sometimes be a problem. As long as the basement is constructed wholly on the interior of the residence, no exterior water seepage is probable unless a plumbing leak occurs. Usually, seepage from exterior wetting occurs along basement walls that are coincident to outside perimeter walls. Water will accumulate below the surface if the soil adjacent to the outside wall is loose sand or un-compacted clay. Proper attention to compaction with proper soils and possibly installation of french drains could have prevented this situation.

Some building sites require retaining walls. To be adequately designed, retaining walls must have a sound spread footing below the surface with heavily reinforced walls. Most people do not understand the terrible force soils can exert on a manmade structure. A properly designed retaining wall is typically much more expensive that the layman would normally anticipate. Consequentially, many retaining walls are constructed of marginal design for the intended purpose. Substandard performance may or may not occur, depending on weather and site conditions.

Sometimes, landscaping can aggravate foundation movement problems. First of all, poor landscape maintenance can cause stress even in the most well built homes. The cycles of wetting and drying due to seasonal changes cause the foundation soils to swell and shrink, respectively. Poor landscape maintenance leaves the foundation soils around the perimeter of the house vulnerable to erratic changes in the soil moisture content. Conversely, overwatering keeps adding moisture to the soils surrounding the house, which can result in continuing uplift.

On the other hand, consistent but moderate landscape watering will keep the perimeter soils at a stable moisture conditions. This should help minimize the cyclic variations in the foundation movement.

The layout of landscaping can exert negative influence. The presence of large, moisture sapping trees near exterior walls can cause localized shrinkage of the soil. What’s more, large roots can take hold adjacent to the foundation. If a wet season ensues, the roots will grow in the vicinity of the foundation where water tends to gather.

Actually, much of the necessary work involves awareness more than anything else. The additional monies necessary to accomplish some of the following suggestions can easily be considered as product liability insurance. In addition, the selling points of deep quality don’t have to be buried with the product. A good foundation performs best when it’s out of sight and out of mind, but it’s virtues can certainly be touted.

Nothing regarding a prospective building site should be taken for granted. If the site has received embankment fill soil or has been disturbed in any manner, all available details should be investigated. If embankment fill has been placed on the site in the past, either recent or long past, information regarding its condition is essential.

Even if the embankment fill had been placed under controlled conditions, which means it’s been tested as it was placed, the age of the placement may be important. For example, the placement of a three foot thick layer of clay fill may have been subjected to years of wetting/drying cycles which had alternatively saturated and fissured the soil, in which case the soil must be treated as an unprepared site.

If the site has received considerable uncontrolled embankment fill, it may be possible to build on the site. However, a thorough sub-soil investigation followed by a foundation design prepared to account for uncontrolled fill can be designed. The cost of such an endeavor is high, though.

Most proposed home sites in Amarillo are part of a development where several other homes are being built. Knowledge of the site conditions of one site may be applicable to many other sites. This circumstance may be conducive to a thorough investigation for one site to represent several nearby sites. This can possibly act to reduce the investigative costs. Again, nothing should be assumed regarding a particular site’s condition until it has been shown accordingly to be suitable.

Conditions to be determined regarding the site involve a number of factors. The type of soil, of course, is crucial. For example, a house built on an expansive clay will be much less forgiving than a house built on lean clayey sands, typically. The stiffness or denseness of the foundation soil is an issue, as is the in-situ moisture condition. The type of embankment soil used for leveling or raising the grade must be conducive to the on site soil condition. On a site consisting of expansive clays, the embankment fill should also be a clay, but it should be a clayey soil that is less expansive than the on-site soil if economically feasible.

Whenever a site calls for the placement of embankment fill soil for the purpose of leveling or raising the floor level, the City Code dictates testing of each lift of soil to obtain a percent compaction according to the Standard Proctor of 90% with a moisture content within the range of +/-5% of optimum soil moisture content. Embankment fill placed at these standards does not necessarily prevent post construction soil movement (volume change), which can result in uplift with site wetting and shrinkage with site drying. It would be better to compact at 95% Standard Proctor at an optimum moisture content range of +/-3%. As previously stated, this embankment fill should be compatible with the site. City code does not state any requirement in this regard.

Local city code states that no site preparation work is required where no embankment fill soil is added for leveling purposes or when the existing site grading is sufficient. As stated earlier, though, a site such as this being built on during the height of the dry season on an expansive clay site is asking for post construction perimeter uplift problems. This situation can be alleviated to a degree by processing at least the top one foot of natural grade soil to the same compaction standards as advised earlier. This will cause the soils near the surface to be sealed and less likely to swell and uplift. Since a higher grade than surrounding terrain is almost always advisable, consideration for additional select embankment fill soil that is also properly prepared would be advantageous.

As previously noted, most residential structures end up having the floor level to be less than six inches higher than the surrounding ground level. This usually occurs because the perimeter footing is placed at the presumed new soil grade level, which will also act as the brick ledge for a brick veneer sided house. This means that the six inch clearance between ground and sill plate is now obtained. However, the landscape guys haven’t shown up yet. They shall proceed to place topsoil on this grading. The end result is a two to four inch floor to soil difference in grade. This circumstance should be anticipated in the design and/or in the site’s final grading.

Of course, the Code requirement of positive site drainage should be anticipated as a final result after landscaping has been completed. This may require prior consideration during initial site preparation.

Several basic residential foundation design practices exist that have proven to be suitable for many residential structures in the Amarillo area. Of course, these practices exceed the above mentioned minimal footing as required by the City Code Enforcement. A common design often used by astute builders for a single story unit consists of a 30” deep perimeter footing that is 12” wide with appropriate reinforcing steel. The floor slab is 4” thick on a sand layer with slab thickenings with additional steel beneath each interior wall. Instead of wire mesh, actual reinforcing bars are placed in two directions embedded one inch above the bottom of the slab. Generally, this is an acceptable design for even larger homes. However, nothing should ever be assumed.

Prior to acceptance of such a design, the structural framing loadings on the foundation system should be assessed. Anticipated load concentrations dictated by roof and wall loadings over wide spans may need additional foundation support. A qualified architect should be retained in the development of structure and framing plans.

All roof support requirements should be anticipated. The architect should be consulted to assure no structural incompatibilities are built into the roof support system. Wherever possible, architectural plans should identify roof support locations and guidance should be provided to relieve the framer of having to “think on his feet” for much of the roof support design any more than is absolutely necessary, particularly when special problems are anticipated.

With today’s modern “open space” floor plans, the use of architect expertise in concert with the foundation engineer becomes crucial more than ever before.

The Texas Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has prepared a simple, but most appropriate two part document entitled “Recommended practice for the Design of Residential Foundations” and “Guidelines for the Evaluation and Repair of Residential Foundations”. This document is very recent, having been presented to the Society on 3 April 2003. Access to this document is highly advised for every professional involved in residential construction. It can be downloaded for a fee from the Section website, www.texasce.org.

This document defines an “engineered foundation” as a state licensed professional engineer design which has available geotechnical information. The definition also states that the construction work is observed and documented.

This document provides guidance concerning the type of design procedure or rational and the circumstances for the performance of the foundation design.

The engineered foundation design provides a plan view with details of all structural components and reinforcements. In addition, the plan addresses the site preparation requirements and specifications as noted above in the discussion. This plan does not include the framing or architectural design. The foundation engineer should not be expected to “okay” a set of drawings. In such circumstances, an architect should be involved in the actual framing consideration.

Essentially, this document raises the level of the residential foundation design to that of engineering designs that have been traditionally associated with larger projects such as industrial, institutional, and public works engineering endeavors.

This does not mean that intense engineering presence is necessary on the typical residential structure project. It does not propose that all individual residential foundations be designed by a professional engineer. All that is being said is that the new home construction should receive the same consideration, the same care, the same meticulous attention to the design/construct detail that is traditionally provided for the larger and more expensive engineering projects.

When one thinks about it, it’s only reasonable to expect nothing less than whole hearted care and attention that is typically associated with the larger projects. What’s more, the documentation of the design and its associated specification details serve to protect all parties involved in the project. Each project plan should provide written guidance and specification regarding documentation and specifications.

As noted by previous discussion, occasions do arise where deficiencies arise due to improper care or lack of craftsmanship during the installation process. Most technicians perform their areas of expertise with pride and confidence. As a result, craftsmanship is not always at issue, but it can be.

The rule of thumb for anyone involved in the construction endeavor is “you can’t be too careful”. To assume that people hired will do a good job would be nice, but it’s not wise. This philosophy is particularly applicable to the site preparation and foundation construction phase of the project. After all, most of all good or bad foundation work is covered up when it’s done. It’s no fun to find out it wasn’t placed in accordance with plans and specifications when a problem occurs. A lot of stuttering seems to take place at this point in time.

This means the work must be monitored and documented with testing, if appropriate.

The site preparation must be tested, of course, in order to comply with city codes. It wouldn’t be a bad idea for the job supervisor to be present during the testing to be certain the testing technician is properly representing the building site. He’s not immune from error any more than the other building professional technicians will be.

The same goes for the forming and steel placement in the foundation system. The placement of the footing and slab concrete is by no means a slam dunk deal. The technician may be tempted to add too much water to the concrete mix so his finishing job will be easier and faster. The supervisor may be advised to obtain concrete test cylinder samples to assure himself the delivered concrete meets his design standards. The presence of the builder’s representative during these crucial times of the home construction tends to lift the standards of everyone involved when it has been clearly indicated he cares that the job is done properly. Documentation by the representative’s witness can save a lot of heartache down the road if problems ever do occur.

The same goes for the plumbing installations. After all, the concrete and the soil are going to bury these features. It’s best not to find a problem after the concrete’s down and hard.

The astute placement of landscape features to avoid severe absorption of water hungry trees and shrubs near the foundation should be helpful. At the same time, planters and landscape features that tend to cause accumulation of water against the outside walls should be only applied with due care.

No moisture retention landscape features should be allowed to rise above or near the floor level along outside walls.

Consider the above noted suggestions. The cost for the initial site evaluation, of course, is highly dependent of the nature of the site and the number of sites at one location. If a full blown geotechnical exploration is necessary for a single unit, the cost for that service, alone, can approximate ½ to 1% of the total construction cost. More typically for a development project house, this cost can be distributed across several units. Again, the circumstances shall always dictate.

Often, the builder is familiar by past experience with the site conditions. He should prove to himself, without a doubt, that his past experience is applicable. He should also be certain that his past experience is accurate if he hasn’t done so already. This may require the consultation of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

Once the site has been characterized by whatever method, the foundation/structural system design must be completed. If it’s an engineered design, again depending on the complexity of detail, the cost of the design may fall in the range of about 1% to 2% of the total job, and this should include periodic inspection of the work by the engineer or architect. Again, the builder may be able to apply a specific design philosophy to a number of projects. This would not be considered an “engineered” design, because neither an engineer nor an architect should ever provide “cookie cutter” plans. Never the less, such a situation may be appropriate. It must be kept in mind that an “engineered foundation” does not constitute a full structural design. This is the function of an architect and his associated structural engineer. Usually, a foundation/structural engineer can work together with the architect to ensure a consistent structural design.

Finally, the work requires a degree of testing and inspection. Much of the inspection can be performed by the builder’s representative, which should not add to cost. His documentation efforts should remain part of his function.

Now look at what’s been said. Proper awareness and appropriate attention to the necessary details that are appropriate should cost no more than a little time. Much of the above can be accomplished by such actions.

Preparation of the site by higher standards as noted above may add some cost, but most any earthwork contractor worth his salt won’t add much to the price if he knows what he’s doing. He’ll be more attentive if the builder shows an interest in the work, that’s for certain.

Prior geotechnical testing, architect’s involvement, and subsequent engineering design does add to the cost. If the builder can convince the prospective homebuyer of the advantage of such efforts, the cost can be passed on to the buyer. The builder should use high quality in the foundation system as a selling issue. In fact, such efforts are crucial for complex site and design issues. A general rule is that such costs can add 2% to 3% to the cost of the home. Architect fees would be in addition. The additional design features (thicker footings and additional foundation details) can be expected to add about 10% to the cost of a minimum standard “City Code” footing.

The testing, if secured from a testing agency, adds a relatively small cost, but must be paid in any case to meet City Code during the site preparation.

Presuming additional costs are involved, the most obvious answer to cost justification is to convince the owner it’s worth the additional expense. This presentation should be evidence enough that such an endeavor is worthwhile.

Some homebuilders have had to face financial hardship because of deficiencies as described above. They need little convincing of the justification of the above noted proposed additional costs. Other homebuilders have been astute enough to realize that a little up front investment in the basic foundation building units makes life a whole lot easier in the long run.

Engineering investigations dealing with multiple insurance claims in home defects that have resulted from plumbing leaks and accidental occurrences such as floods and storms have shown that the quality of construction has significant impact on the extent of damage once the incident has occurred. A well built home is much more resistant to damage from leaks and incidents than a poorly built home.

Our own experience has indicated that much of the current home insurance crisis stems from high costs of repairs due largely to inherent defects in homes that were constructed poorly or without regard for environmental stress on the structure.

Perhaps the insurance industry will begin to realize that insurance claim costs can be related directly to the quality of the structural unit. If this come about, then quality issues in home construction shall become part of the development of home insurance policy. The builder who is accustomed to quality construction and documentation of that construction shall be much more adequately placed that the builder who is forced into quality by the insurance industry.

Eventually, the insurance industry may recognize that policy premiums can be tied to the quality of construction. Should the insurance rate be reduced for a well documented home quality construction procedure, then the additional efforts required in quality home construction can be balanced out by lowered home insurance policies.

Reference to the second part of the above noted Texas Section of ASCE “Guidelines for Evaluation and Repair of Residential Foundation” is offered. Again, this document can be down loaded from the Texas Section of ASCE website at www.texasce.org.

Typically, foundation repair procedures can be expected to be costly, complex, only partially adequate, and quite painful for the homeowner, regardless of who pays. As previously stated, the insurance industry is currently in crisis because it often becomes involved in foundation repair.

Unfortunately, the whole business of foundation repair can be very difficult to deal with. Few people have thorough overall knowledge of the foundation repair alternatives and perspectives. Most foundation repair contractors must rely on applicable engineering expertise to ensure the proper application of repair. A relative few number of engineers have sufficient training or experience in foundation repair and remediation. Often, lack of training leads to solutions of excessive cost.

Any foundation can be repaired. However, the cost of that repair can often compare to the cost of total replacement!

This is a primary reason home insurance costs have skyrocketed. Water damaged homes often become involved in foundation repair costs. Often these cost compare with replacement costs of the home. The insurance company is accustomed to replacing a home after a fire. After all, the incidence of fire is rare. But every other home has a plumbing leak at some point in time. One can imagine the impact on insurance costs when every other home must be replaced!

This discussion isn’t speculation, it’s what has happened in the past year or so.

The noted Texas Section ASCE document provides an approach to the solution of foundation deficiencies. It provides a protocol towards rational foundation remediation and the standards where that remediation should be applied. Most of this knowledge is quite new. Only in recent years has the problems surrounding slab on grade type residential structures been identified. This document should be beneficial in providing a rational approach to the circumstances.

The document advises levels of investigation to a foundation defect or repair situation. The following depicts the level of investigation, that is typically performed by a qualified forensic engineer, or by someone who is qualified and experienced in foundation repair design.

Level “A” Investigation - This investigation is the minimal examination. It consists of interviews of the owner and a walk through where the factors affecting the foundation and structure are initially identified. This report can often advise the recommendations for further study.

Level “B” Investigation - This study consists foundation elevation studies and appropriate sketches in addition to the information gathered by the Level “A” study.

Level “C” Investigation- This investigation includes necessary soils sampling and testing, plumbing tests, and footings surveys. The report’s information should be sufficient to provide enough information by which remediation repair can be initiated.

The ASCE document provides parameters and criteria to allow a rational evaluation regarding the need for a repair. In other words, how level should a floor be before it’s considered suitable for use? Is the repair viable or absolutely necessary? Is the defect a matter of structural safety? These are all questions that must be identified. Past experience indicates that the lack of a rational criteria for acceptability has been the source of needless expense and litigation. This document provides a viable perspective and will serve as an industry standard that will, in all probability be utilized in future litigation awards.

Remedies of structural and foundation deficiencies require specialized knowledge, skill, and experience if the work is to be done effectively at a cost that is as reasonable as possible. The repair work can involve underpinning, slab mudjacking, break out/replacement, moisture barriers, regrading of drainage, and any number of solutions. The bottom line is that each circumstance is bound to be unique, so no set solution, other than past experience, knowledge, and training in foundation repair and protection can be stated. It all must begin with one of the above noted investigation procedures.

A FINAL NOTE - None of the above comments constitute specific engineering recommendations, nor should they be interpreted as such. This is not an engineering report, it is only informational in content.